Page 188
Page 188
sufficiently to be realised that the enemy might inflict irretrievable damage on our distant possessions so situated during this period. He thought that the doctrine that in certain circumstances land forces might usefully co-operate with the Navy in defence against organised attack from the sea was sounder. The defence of the Empire was a combined charge. He suggested that paragraphs 4 to 6 inclusive be omitted.
MR. MCKENNA pointed out that the paragraphs to which Sir William Nicholson objected were historical, and dealt with the scale of attack hitherto regarded as reasonably probable.
LORD HALDANE said that these paragraphs were intended to show the evolution of our defence policy. Their historical aspect might perhaps be made more clear, or they could be omitted. It would not affect the later paragraphs dealing with existing conditions.
THE PRIME MINISTER said that it perhaps would be as well to omit the paragraphs if exception was taken to them. In view of the suggestion made by the Commonwealth Government in their telegram printed in Paper 71-C, it would be necessary to postpone further discussion of the question till the Australian Defence Minister was himself able to be present.
(Conclusion.)
Further consideration of the scale of attack, to which Australia may be considered liable, to be adjourned for the attendance of the Australian Minister for Defence. Paragraphs 4 to 6 inclusive, referring to the past history of our defence policy, to be omitted.
4. CANADA: SCALE OF ATTACK ON PRINCE RUPERT. (C.I.D. Papers 65-C. and 71-C.)
SIR WILLIAM NICHOLSON said that the objections which he had urged to certain paragraphs in the Paper dealing with Australia applied similarly to paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Memorandum. He also desired to call attention to paragraph 9. It did not seem to him consistent at one and the same time to tell the Canadians that war with the United States was in the last degree unlikely, that their coasts were absolutely secure against serious attack by any other Power, and yet constantly to urge them, as we did, to make every effort to improve their military defence forces.
LORD ESHER suggested the omission of the words "by an advance overland' in paragraph 9.
THE PRIME MINISTER called attention to paragraph 10.
"
MR. CHURCHILL thought that the inclusion of paragraph 10 might perhaps help to bring home to the Canadians the value of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance.
LORD ESHER suggested the omission of the last sentence of paragraph 12. THE PRIME MINISTER said that the reference to the relations between Japan and the United States was not necessary to the argument, and might be omitted.
SIR WILLIAM NICHOLSON suggested the omission of paragraph 13. With reference to paragraph 15, he expressed the opinion that submarine mines were a cheap and effective defence, and he had never been able to understand why it had been decided in 1904-5 to reverse the previous policy and abolish them everywhere.
SIR ARTHUR WILSON said that the submarine mines had their use, and their abolition six years ago may perhaps have been rather wholesale. He did not think it possible to prescribe any general rule as to their employment, because the circumstances in each port were widely different. Each case should be decided on its merits. In nearly all cases it was desirable that submarine mines should be entirely under naval control.
(Conclusion.)
Further consideration of the scale of attack, to which Prince Rupert may be considered liable to be adjourned pending the arrival of the Canadian Minister for
Page 188
Page 188
Page 188